In post 6524, Ythan wrote:If a deck isn't shit it shouldn't take all that much thought to play? That's my take.
What? Decks still take a ton of thought to play, whether it's a well-known and well-developed archetype, or something you brewed up for fun and brought to FNM.
In post 6525, Ythan wrote:I mean isn't that why people netdeck in the first place?
People netdeck in order to play powerful, tuned decks and try to use their playskill to get the best performance they can out of the deck, not to "not think".
I mean, I'm a brewer. I love bringing ridiculous decks to Standard nights at my LGS. I brought a Heroes' Podium deck once. But I still can completely understand why people would netdeck. Magic has a lot of different skills, and some people know their strengths aren't "coming up with a deck from scratch"
jdodge1019: hasjghsalghsakljghs is from vermont
jdodge1019: vermont is made of liberal freaks and cows
jdodge1019: he's not a liberal
jdodge1019: thus he is a cow
It's one thing to see cards you like or interactions between cards you like and use those. I'm talking about copying and pasting, if that was unclear. Buying a deck from a tournament.
"Quit having fun doing things I don't have fun doing!"
One time, back in 'nam, Sudo was set upon by an entire squadron of charlies. He challenged them all to a game of Pictionary, which he won resoundingly. The charlies were forced to not only surrender the skirmish, but also their world-famous chili recipe, which Sudo sold to Texas for a hefty profit. Sudo is a master of diplomacy.
"Netdecking" is what you get when you introduce a competitive aspect to a card game. Or, really, any game. Even shit like the Pokemon video games does it--certain strategies prove themselves to be good and then you have 60% of teams running Choice Band Scissor.
Literally every competitive game or sport does this. Some strategies are simply more proven and better than others.
Perhaps someone sees Dark Jeskai in a tournament and it appeals to them--you get to play all the most powerful spells, there is a lot of play to the deck. They want to check it out. They want to win. Playing a weird Bant Landfall Midrange deck is much harder--the deck might be good, but you simply don't have as much time and effort able to put into it and it won't be as well tuned. The person netdecking Dark Jeskai is probably going to have a higher winrate, too.
Pretty much, it goes back to that stupid David Sirlin thesis: Play to Win.
Current Avatar: Dr. Contessa(OC, art by @pastelpuffin)
This is more of a literally every single person at my spot netdecks complaint. I've made my disappointment in netdeckers clear but I get that it's bound to happen. But on that scale? It's pathetic.
I disagree. I play with people who don't give it their all all the time, and it really bothers me and has ruined my enjoyment partially because I like playing cutthroat. It's more a matter of ideals than a clear-cut matter.
Current Avatar: Dr. Contessa(OC, art by @pastelpuffin)
In post 6535, Ythan wrote:In an obligatory multiplayer game this kind of atmosphere decreases the actual quality of the game as a whole.
I was responding to this point? I think netdecking in general is just an offshoot of 'tryhard' behavior and trying to decry one without the other is ultimately folly.
Tryhard by the way is a pretty shitty term.
Current Avatar: Dr. Contessa(OC, art by @pastelpuffin)
It's starting to feel odd how often I have to reiterate the difference between that and copying a deck card for card and just using it as is like a scrub. That's a thing that an enormous number of players do and you ought not to defend something other than what's being criticized.
In post 6542, Ythan wrote:It's starting to feel odd how often I have to reiterate the difference between that and copying a deck card for card and just using it as is like a scrub. That's a thing that an enormous number of players do and you ought not to defend something other than what's being criticized.
In your arbitrary crusade against netdeckers where do you draw the line? Am I still on your shitlist if I change just one sideboard card; it's not the same list any more. How many cards do I have to change? What if you've honestly looked at the complete 75 and you don't see anything that needs changed, it's literally perfect for your local meta; are you supposed to arbitrarily change things as not to netdeck despite it making your deck actively worse?
Like I get that your local meta/play group apparently isn't to your liking but it seems like it has you tilting at windmills.
I played my deck of choice in legacy for near to 2 years before i finally understood all the interactions that the deck had with itself. It was only at that time i could make a unique change. Every time before that point that i tried to change, the deck fell apart and crashed horrifically.
Netdecking exactly is pretty close to a requirement, otherwise you wouldnt understand why the deck is the way it is. Even a single card can change win percentages massively.
Keep in mind im mostly speaking from the standpoint of a legacy player, where decks has been worked on for many years by hundreds of people.
In standard, eh, things change. Brews can be more sucessful there, but still, i dont think its a bad thing to pick up a known thing and pilot it.
In post 6547, Ythan wrote:Just ego search me I'm pretty sure the thread won't break.
It probably won't break but he'll probably just find you throwing an angry incoherent tantrum that when asked about specifics just caterwauls in anger some more.
